Skip to main content

About your Search

20131101
20131130
Search Results 0 to 2 of about 3 (some duplicates have been removed)
legislation which imposes an obligation on one sex that it does not impose on another. you don't have to take my word for it. the principal scholarship used by the proponents is this article in the yale law journal by professor emerson where he says clearly that after the equal rights amendment is ratified, the courts would have to strike down nonsupport laws which impose the duty of support on men only. now, this takes away from the wife and mother her legal right to be a full-time wife and mother and to bring up her baby in her own home. and i think that's a basic and most fundamental right women have. then you move in the second area, which is the area of the draft. of course, as you know, women are not subject to the draft like men are today. there's no dispute about the fact that equal rights amendment will positively make women subject to the draft and on an equal basis with men. and again, we can refer to the same law journal article use the by the proponents in congressional debates and in state legislative hearings and spelled out in page after page of how women will have to carry th
. well, anyway, we don't -- they couldn't afford the lawyers perhaps. oh, they do have a lot of lawyers. anyway, let's get on with the clip. what we're going to see today is a debate by phyllis schlafly and pat schroeder congresswoman from the state of colorado. she was a feminist and pro-e.r.a. supporter. so we could turn down the lights and we'll start the clip. >> bill zimmerman and virginia sherwood. >> i'd like to start first of all, and i can direct this at both of you, but i think mainly it will probably be for you, mrs. schlafly. that is the quotation we started the law with, equality of the rights under the law will not be denied or abridged by the united states or by any state on account of sex. now, you are with stop e.r.a. why are you against this? >> well, the language of the amendment i think shows why we didn't find out what was the matter with it until we got well into this constitutional debate. most people thought it meant equal pay for equal work, but that's now already guaranteed by the equal employment opportunity act of 1972. but we have found that the equal rights
Search Results 0 to 2 of about 3 (some duplicates have been removed)